Except that this is really only technically correct: 27 Super Bowls were won by a quarterback selected in the first round of the draft, and 24 more weren't. Even without Brady's five Super Bowl wins, 19 out of 51 is not such a small sample so as to be irrelevant. Perhaps as significant: Sixteen Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were drafted in the first round, while fifteen Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were not.

My problem therefore with arguments for selecting a quarterback early is this: People argue on the basis of a stat that points in the direction of 51%, and then refuse to acknowledge every other pertinent piece of data.

Certainly you believe that all Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were surrounded by one of the best teams in the league in any given year, don't you? Therefore you have to conclude that there's a whole lot a franchise needs to do right so that they can eventually win a Super Bowl, whether their quarterback is the most important player on the team or not.

Actually I don't. I do believe that most SB-winning QB's had a very good, and most likely top-10, defense to compliment them. The pieces surrounding a QB, offensively, IMO and from what I've seen over the years have largely been negligible.

I wanted to edit this to ask you some things. While you point to "51%" as not being a substantial argument for drafting a 1st round QB, I poise the question of what other round is better? You are statistically more likely to draft a SB winning QB in the 1st round than in any other round. You cannot simply lump all other rounds together and consider yourself winner of the debate because 24 is negligibly smaller than 27. No, 27 is much greater than the numbers you will get in other subsequent rounds. Without doing the math, I can pretty well guarantee that its at least twice as good of odds. For instance round 3 has 6 SB winners and 6/51 is just under 12%. Is 51% not much greater than 12%? I think that it is. You have to get substantially lucky to get a SB winning QB out of round 1, and if you don't consider Brady and Montana, the odds are significantly not in your favor.

I didn't say anything about Super Bowls. Liquid said the rule changes changed offenses. I assumed he meant, turned it into a passing league. I suggest it was already a passing league and the rule changes were to preserve it since the defensive players have gotten so devastating to the offensive talent. Just my opinion.

Right. What I meant was that in the "passing league" (and the NFL has been a "passing league" for a long time), passing yardage is hardly a determiner of which team will go on to win a Super Bowl. A team's merely accumulating high passing yardage in itself doesn't prove that the passing game is productive, meaning leading to wins.

Just doing a quick search starting at 80 and going to 85 their was on the average only 2 to 3 guys that attempted over 600 passes in a season. Only 2 to 3 guys a year hit the 4000 yards in a season.

I thought their would be some progression starting in 90 but the same holds true from 90 to 95. 2 to 3 a year attempted over 600 passes and a the same amount for 4000 yard passes.

Don't have the time to see where it shifted but I looked at the last 2 years in those same categories for 2015 and 16. Both years had 6 guys that attempted over 600 passes and several more within the 580 to 600 range. 4000 yard passers were at 10 and 12.

Those numbers would at least suggest that its more of a passing league now as the number of 600 passing attempts doubled and the 4000 yards passing in a season more than doubled.

Right. What I meant was that in the "passing league" (and the NFL has been a "passing league" for a long time), passing yardage is hardly a determiner of which team will go on to win a Super Bowl. A team's merely accumulating high passing yardage in itself doesn't prove that the passing game is productive, meaning leading to wins.

I see what you were saying. I agree with that. It could mean a lot of things including playing from behind a lot because of a poor defense.

I wanted to edit this to ask you some things. While you point to "51%" as not being a substantial argument for drafting a 1st round QB, I poise the question of what other round is better? You are statistically more likely to draft a SB winning QB in the 1st round than in any other round. You cannot simply lump all other rounds together and consider yourself winner of the debate because 24 is negligibly smaller than 27. No, 27 is much greater than the numbers you will get in other subsequent rounds. Without doing the math, I can pretty well guarantee that its at least twice as good of odds. For instance round 3 has 6 SB winners and 6/51 is just under 12%. Is 51% not much greater than 12%? I think that it is. You have to get substantially lucky to get a SB winning QB out of round 1, and if you don't consider Brady and Montana, the odds are significantly not in your favor.

Actually, you are not really correct here. You are the one setting the OR condition at "First Round". Therefore it's First Round OR Any Other Round, and then you have the statistical consideration to measure against. But I think if we're focusing on this, we're splitting hairs on a very irrelevant segment of the discussion. Step out of the numbers for a moment, and let's look at the reality of drafting in the NFL.

I'm not advocating the approach of exclusively drafting quarterbacks late. It's hard to get a quality talent when it's been thoroughly picked through, and by the sixth and seventh rounds, there really isn't much talent left. That being said, drafting a quarterback very early comes at a tremendous cost. Drafting 27th overall as they are this year, the Chiefs have 1303.4 Draft Pick Value Points (an amount improved upon by the awarding of compensatory selections), the equivalent of one tenth-overall pick. One pick. What talent could the Chiefs see at tenth-overall at quarterback that would be worth giving up an entire draft class for? Of course, that also raises this question: How do you objectively value what a draft pick is actually worth. There are more than a few mathematical studies that suggest that Jimmy Johnson got it all wrong, and that the earliest draft picks are largely overvalued, but all such studies still require that you buy in to algorithms that are at best questionable in their validity.

Really, because a player doesn't get any better just because you drafted them earlier, the bottom line is that best player available presents the best option for acquiring the talent needed to field a Super Bowl-contending team. As for when a team should actually draft a quarterback, that decision really comes back to determining what's most important out of a list of competing objectives:

• Do you leverage the roster to win today, or do you leverage the roster to win tomorrow?

• At a given pick, is quarterback the position that can be projected to be upgraded more so than any other position?

• When a decision is made, what is the opportunity cost?

These are not simple questions. In fact, they are so complex that at times, despite all of their advance preparation with mocks and boards and evaluations, teams actually pass on a draft selection because they couldn't manage their selection process.

The Chiefs have enough issues remaining on their roster (including having far too much future cap money assigned to players under-performing due to injury), that it wouldn't surprise me to see at the end of April that the Chiefs still believe Alex Smith is better than anything they would get out of the draft, and failing that, that dedicating an inordinate share of draft capital to the quarterback position would leave gaps in the roster that would expose said successor to development in a situation inconducive to quarterback development. It's not what certain fans want to hear, but given the Chiefs' success during the past four years (and going from the league's 32nd-best team to a perennial playoff contender generally falls under a franchise's definition of "success"), it seems to be most pragmatic for the Chiefs to pursue using the draft to seal the very significant gaps in their roster: LG, ILB, NT, RB, and LE, not necessarily in that order.

Actually I don't. I do believe that most SB-winning QB's had a very good, and most likely top-10, defense to compliment them. The pieces surrounding a QB, offensively, IMO and from what I've seen over the years have largely been negligible.

Well, yes, if the defense is amazing, a quarterback doesn't need the world around him on offense. In fact, that's the team Alex Smith had in 2011 with the 49ers. The problem? Two special teams fumbles. Per drive, Smith's offense outscored Manning's offense in that 2011 NFC Championship Game.

The Chiefs' defense hasn't been amazing, or even great. They've been good. The highlight plays made them look far better than they actually are. And the offensive talent? Give me an offensive line that can pass block, receivers that can catch, and a runningback that can be explosive through the lane and not put the ball on the ground. You know, a team like the Steelers.

Really, if you're truly objective about the Chiefs, look past the quarterback at the other 21 starters. Collectively, they have not demonstrated consistency with regard to playing like a Super Bowl-winning team. It's hard to imagine a team like the Chiefs getting hot for three post-season games in a row just to stand up to the likes of the Patriots, who play winning ball week-in-and-week-out, and go 16-1 in games not started by a rookie quarterback.

Well, yes, if the defense is amazing, a quarterback doesn't need the world around him on offense. In fact, that's the team Alex Smith had in 2011 with the 49ers. The problem? Two special teams fumbles. Per drive, Smith's offense outscored Manning's offense in that 2011 NFC Championship Game.

The Chiefs' defense hasn't been amazing, or even great. They've been good. The highlight plays made them look far better than they actually are. And the offensive talent? Give me an offensive line that can pass block, receivers that can catch, and a runningback that can be explosive through the lane and not put the ball on the ground. You know, a team like the Steelers.

Really, if you're truly objective about the Chiefs, look past the quarterback at the other 21 starters. Collectively, they have not demonstrated consistency with regard to playing like a Super Bowl-winning team. It's hard to imagine a team like the Chiefs getting hot for three post-season games in a row just to stand up to the likes of the Patriots, who play winning ball week-in-and-week-out, and go 16-1 in games not started by a rookie quarterback.

Matt Cassel, and Jimmy Garoppolo looked good playing for the Patriots. But, let's just continue believing the myth that all you have to do is to find the magic quarterback. Bullets fall off his chest. He mysteriously makes the walk on receiver catch every pass. It's like Jack, and the magical bean stock.

Reality is much harder to believe in. There are 32 teams trying to beat each for a common goal. Right now, the Patriots are the superior team. They do a better job. However, Belichick is approaching the twilight of his career. Surely, he can't coach for another fifteen seasons. Tom Brady wants to be the next Blanda, but Blanda sucked at 48. So, everything turns full circle. The Chiefs will earn a shot if they can be better than the Patriots or the Broncos, or whatever team is hot.

A good QB is mandatory. A great quarterback comes around every fifty years or so. That would be nice too.

I will tell you what the Chiefs lack. Unless Conley, Maclin, Hill, or any of the other receivers get a dose of Grown UP, they don't have a receiver that can take over a game. Maybe Hill can be that man. I remember Steve Smith, Sr. lighting teams up. It takes a Grown Ass Man to make big plays. We have nice receivers, fast and elusive receivers. We need a shove down your throat, and have your mom hate me kind of receiver. Don't see that dude yet.

I will tell you what the Chiefs lack. Unless Conley, Maclin, Hill, or any of the other receivers get a dose of Grown UP, they don't have a receiver that can take over a game. Maybe Hill can be that man. I remember Steve Smith, Sr. lighting teams up. It takes a Grown Ass Man to make big plays. We have nice receivers, fast and elusive receivers. We need a shove down your throat, and have your mom hate me kind of receiver. Don't see that dude yet.

Is Wide Receiver what you think the Chiefs need most? It seems like you and I generally seem to feel the same in principle about the quarterback position in relation to the roster (even if you and I don't see eye-to-eye on what Smith is relative to NFL quarterbacks), but I have thought that the assortment of receivers that the Chiefs have are pretty good. If progress continues at a rate suggested by the improvement from 2015 to 2016, and if we can assume that Maclin will be healthy and have his head on right, the Chiefs have a top-ten receiver corps. They do need an eventual replacement for Maclin, but I wasn't certain this was the year for that.

I wouldn't be upset if the Chiefs went for a wide receiver in the first round, but the Chiefs appear to have nothing more than a fig leaf at inside linebacker and a part-time little-engine-that-could/part-time matador at left guard, and those situations disturb me.

Very good points. I see the possibility of a Steve Smith in Hill but the jury is out. I think Maclin has (although not taking over a game) shown legit stud status at times getting separation and making the catch. This year was very un-Maclin. I hope it was an aboration and not the start of a sharp decline. He and Hill with Kelce could be a force.

I reread this whole thread again (because it might be the best thread I have ever read on QBs) and looked at these guys. Pretty much after pick 18 only one first round QB has won a Supr Bowl. Rogers. Marino was a complete stud at pick 27, but I am thinking they have to really be in love with a guy to pick a QB here.

I am thinking the guy left will not be the guy they love. We will just have to see, but I will not jump off a bridge if they don't take a guy until round 3 or 4. I feel like with nothing to back it up that they will go round 2 or 3 for a QB to develop.

Very good points. I see the possibility of a Steve Smith in Hill but the jury is out. I think Maclin has (although not taking over a game) shown legit stud status at times getting separation and making the catch. This year was very un-Maclin. I hope it was an aboration and not the start of a sharp decline. He and Hill with Kelce could be a force.

I reread this whole thread again (because it might be the best thread I have ever read on QBs) and looked at these guys. Pretty much after pick 18 only one first round QB has won a Supr Bowl. Rogers. Marino was a complete stud at pick 27, but I am thinking they have to really be in love with a guy to pick a QB here.

I am thinking the guy left will not be the guy they love. We will just have to see, but I will not jump off a bridge if they don't take a guy until round 3 or 4. I feel like with nothing to back it up that they will go round 2 or 3 for a QB to develop.

Splits can be arbitrary: Drew Brees was the 1st pick of the 2nd round in a year before the 32nd-overall pick would have been a first-round pick.

Really, I don't think tiering limited to round number reflects the effect that demand has on driving the cost of a quarterback deemed to be 'anything close to approximately NFL-ready, maybe' to well above what actual projected value warrants.

I'm glad you've enjoyed this discussion. It's actually one piece of a much larger project that explores the value of drafted quarterbacks, and whether there are better ways to build a Super Bowl-winning team.

According to the above link, Colin Kaepernick was pretty good against pressure. Alex Smith was average. Ryan Tannehill was really, really bad.

Wouldn't it be special if Kaepernick signed with the Chiefs for a one year (prove it) deal.

I'm not a fan of a chart that pegs value to passer rating.

Next Gen Stats show that Alex Smith had the ball out of his hand almost four-tenths of a second faster per play than Colin Kaepernick, and perhaps that was why Colin Kaepernick was "pressured" more frequently than Smith.

Kaepernick is unemployed for good reasons. The NFL will be a better place when the throwing runningbacks are gone.

Next Gen Stats show that Alex Smith had the ball out of his hand almost four-tenths of a second faster per play than Colin Kaepernick, and perhaps that was why Colin Kaepernick was "pressured" more frequently than Smith.

Kaepernick is unemployed for good reasons. The NFL will be a better place when the throwing runningbacks are gone.

Kaep does have an elongated throwing motion. That could cause his release to be slower.

I know an Chiefs' football analyst (of which there are a dime a dozen), and he has been banging the gong for Kaepernick. I don't want him, but I thought I would stir the pot. I can only imagine how Alex Smith would take it if the Chiefs decided to bring him in. Reid is a loyal guy. I don't think he would allow it to happen, but stranger things have happened.

I know an Chiefs' football analyst (of which there are a dime a dozen), and he has been banging the gong for Kaepernick. I don't want him, but I thought I would stir the pot. I can only imagine how Alex Smith would take it if the Chiefs decided to bring him in. Reid is a loyal guy. I don't think he would allow it to happen, but stranger things have happened.

Only an Alex Smith hater could welcome Colin Kaepernick to the Chiefs. The thought is that if Colin Kaepernick beat out Smith once (which he didn't), he could beat out Smith a second time (which he wouldn't). Because Andy Reid is not an arrogant egotist, he won't be motivated to make the change from Smith to Kaepernick that Harbaugh dared to make.

Only an Alex Smith hater could welcome Colin Kaepernick to the Chiefs. The thought is that if Colin Kaepernick beat out Smith once (which he didn't), he could beat out Smith a second time (which he wouldn't). Because Andy Reid is not an arrogant egotist, he won't be motivated to make the change from Smith to Kaepernick that Harbaugh dared to make.

I agree.

I didn't say it was my opinion. In fact, I think it would be a horrible idea. You are spot on.

Actually, you are not really correct here. You are the one setting the OR condition at "First Round". Therefore it's First Round OR Any Other Round, and then you have the statistical consideration to measure against. But I think if we're focusing on this, we're splitting hairs on a very irrelevant segment of the discussion. Step out of the numbers for a moment, and let's look at the reality of drafting in the NFL.

I'm not advocating the approach of exclusively drafting quarterbacks late. It's hard to get a quality talent when it's been thoroughly picked through, and by the sixth and seventh rounds, there really isn't much talent left. That being said, drafting a quarterback very early comes at a tremendous cost. Drafting 27th overall as they are this year, the Chiefs have 1303.4 Draft Pick Value Points (an amount improved upon by the awarding of compensatory selections), the equivalent of one tenth-overall pick. One pick. What talent could the Chiefs see at tenth-overall at quarterback that would be worth giving up an entire draft class for? Of course, that also raises this question: How do you objectively value what a draft pick is actually worth. There are more than a few mathematical studies that suggest that Jimmy Johnson got it all wrong, and that the earliest draft picks are largely overvalued, but all such studies still require that you buy in to algorithms that are at best questionable in their validity.

Really, because a player doesn't get any better just because you drafted them earlier, the bottom line is that best player available presents the best option for acquiring the talent needed to field a Super Bowl-contending team. As for when a team should actually draft a quarterback, that decision really comes back to determining what's most important out of a list of competing objectives:

• Do you leverage the roster to win today, or do you leverage the roster to win tomorrow?

• At a given pick, is quarterback the position that can be projected to be upgraded more so than any other position?

• When a decision is made, what is the opportunity cost?

These are not simple questions. In fact, they are so complex that at times, despite all of their advance preparation with mocks and boards and evaluations, teams actually pass on a draft selection because they couldn't manage their selection process.

The Chiefs have enough issues remaining on their roster (including having far too much future cap money assigned to players under-performing due to injury), that it wouldn't surprise me to see at the end of April that the Chiefs still believe Alex Smith is better than anything they would get out of the draft, and failing that, that dedicating an inordinate share of draft capital to the quarterback position would leave gaps in the roster that would expose said successor to development in a situation inconducive to quarterback development. It's not what certain fans want to hear, but given the Chiefs' success during the past four years (and going from the league's 32nd-best team to a perennial playoff contender generally falls under a franchise's definition of "success"), it seems to be most pragmatic for the Chiefs to pursue using the draft to seal the very significant gaps in their roster: LG, ILB, NT, RB, and LE, not necessarily in that order.

Let's make one thing VERY clear: There aren't very many people on this forum that have studied the draft more than me over the years. You're a blip in decades of discussions. If you want to know how much time I've dedicated to the draft over the years, ask the people here. I just don't post much here anymore, I pop in. It's mostly because many of the people involved in those discussions have moved on, but I still enjoy several of the remaining people here and a few still talk about the draft here and elsewhere. So don't come on here and insult me about the "reality" of the draft.

Moving on... Why are we speaking about an entire draft lot of selections as if they are one pick? They aren't one pick. You may be able to use your arbitrary "trade value chart" to equate the draft to one pick, but the reality is that you have 10 picks. Why would I assign a value to any specific player that I might select? Why should I comment on a QB picked at 10? I'm not advocating for a QB to be picked at 10 and to give up an entire draft.

I'm telling you that it's more likely that you will get an NFL caliber QB in round 1 and that its most likely that a QB from round 1 would win a Super Bowl. This doesn't mean that a QB has to come from round 1, of course they don't. I'm not telling you that the Chiefs MUST draft a QB in round 1 this year, they don't.

I advocate drafting a specific QB at 27 in this draft because the team has a need both currently in a backup capacity and in the future in a starting capacity. I advocate a QB at 27 in this draft because value aligns well with that need. Most of the QB's in this draft are developmental, borderline 1st round talents. There isn't one you'd pound the table for at 1 or 2, but there are a few that all deserve to go round 1. Team's with established veterans with only a year or two left would be wise to take these types of QBs because they have high ceilings and they wouldn't need to be rushed out.

And just what teams do you hear connected to these players throughout the draft process? Playoff teams and teams with solid veterans. Arizona, New Orleans, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, etc.

QB's are rated on an entirely different scale in the NFL relative to other positions in terms of draft value. They are, whether it is right or not, overdrafted more often than not. It is the most important position in the sport. Getting a great QB means a foundation for making the playoffs frequently. Yes, you need other things. You need good protection. You need solid receivers. You need a good defense. However, those things are much, much easier to find and draft.

You can argue all day that an OLB is the position to pick in terms of "value" because in terms of talent versus draft position it just might be. However, you can't state that value relative to the QBs in this draft. If you have a round 1 grade on a QB and that player is one you think fits your scheme and your lockerroom, then that QB trumps every other player on your draft board. It really is that simple, because a QB is so hard to find. The team that does hit on a QB is going to get the most value.

There is one thing that may be right in all of this, there will be teams that miss on the QBs. Not every QB is going to go to the best situation to learn and develop. Some are going tocompletely bust. There may only be one good QB to come from this entire draft. You can't fault the teams that miss for trying to fill this position. The hit rate is low.

The Chiefs are in a position to take a bigger risk than many teams are. The Steelers are that type of team, and so on. These are very good playoff teams that will likely be playoff caliber teams again next year if they don't add a single player. The Chiefs have the opportunity, with so many selections, to take a risk on a QB that they think fits their scheme while also being able to move up and snag another player earlier in round 2. The Chiefs could easily get up in the mid 40's and take another very good player, such as an OLB, that drops out of round 1. They could just as well take an OLB at 27 and move up into the 40's' to get a QB that drops, if they think one they like will drop that far. They aren't locked in to doing any one thing, but they have the ability to take a bigger risk. That's usually a good time to invest in a risky position to begin with.

I respect Crow's opinions. We all have our thoughts. As long as they are supportable, they are valid. I don't know what the Chiefs will do in this draft. An argument can be made for just about anything.

The 2017 draft is less than 4 weeks ahead. Next to a KC Chiefs' winning streak in regular season, these are my favorite times.